Are some workers more revolutionary than others?

[bricolage]

Any conception of the working class as revolutionary has never based itself on the working class being ‘good’, ‘pure’, ‘poor’ or ‘progressive’, merely its existence as part of a social relationship and the position it occupies in relationship to production.


If one identifies proletarian with factory worker (or even worse: with manual labourer), or with the poor, then one cannot see what is subversive in the proletarian condition. The proletariat is the negation of this society. It is not the collection of the poor, but of those who are desperate, those who have no reserves (les sans-réserves in French, or senza riserve in Italian), who have nothing to lose but their chains; those who are nothing, have nothing, and cannot liberate themselves without destroying the whole social order.

So when I ask are some workers more revolutionary than others I am not talking about those that belief in 'revolutionary ideas' or are 'militant', it has nothing to do with how these workers may subjectively conceive the world.


The working class is nothing but the collective position of those who are brought closest to the machinery of the capitalist system; a human function in the capitalist machine; the working class are the revolutionary body because of, and only because of, their position in the capitalist economy, they are the one social body that can close the system down.

The emphasis added is my own and what I want to talk about is that if the working class a collective group of individuals so defined by the societal position they occupy is revolutionary via its ability to halt the productive process and, as is written, the 'close the system down', is it not the case that some workers are more capable of this than others? This is not to say that those working in McDonalds have any more control over their life or are any less exploited than those working in armaments or energy but that the attack upon production and the accumulation of capital that can be launched by each has possibly different levels of potential success. Is there some production that capitalism can survive without? If this is the case are there not then pressure point that are fundamental to capitalist reproduction, that if opened up can trigger the necessary crisis and 'close the system down'. I believe there are but then what does this mean, I do not like the idea of ignoring those that work in other areas because they are 'less revolutionary', nor do I like the return to the vulgar conception of workers as solely those confined to say factories. But then if we are hoping to reach a rupture from which communism can be realised and if the potential of this rupture is more heavily concentrated around certain points is this not the primary focus of attention?

I would be interested as to what others think about this.

[Zanthorus]

if the working class a collective group of individuals so defined by the societal position they occupy is revolutionary via its ability to halt the productive process

This is only part of what makes the working-class revolutionary. Another key aspect, for 'centre' current of the second international at least, was the capacity of the working-class to organise itself:


For the centre tendency, the strength of the proletariat and its revolutionary capacity flows, not from the employed workers’ power to withdraw their labour, but from the power of the proletariat as a class to organise. It is organisation that makes the difference between a spontaneous expression of rage and rebellion, like a riot, and a strike as a definite action for definite and potentially winnable goals.

And for Marx, the working-class is revolutionary because it is completely alienated from the human community. Since man has totally lost himself in the proletariat, he can only be rewon by the proletariat's self-abolition.

[Nuvem]

This is a simple question that can be answered with a couple of sentences. Not all workers are revolutionary and can just as easily be reactionary or apolitical entirely. Not all workers are exactly the same by virtue of them being workers and that's why we get reactionary movements driven by worker-soldiers.

Never in history has the entire working class of any nation been united and of one mind and there has always been a reactionary or revisionist movement that is principally composed of workers following the lead of some bourgeois authority figure. Quite simply, viewing the working class as one undivided chunk of ideological material is fallacy.

[bricolage]

And for Marx, the working-class is revolutionary because it is completely alienated from the human community. Since man has totally lost himself in the proletariat, he can only be rewon by the proletariat's self-abolition.
But this self-abolition has to come about through a praxis of sorts, most likely the halting of production, what I was trying to ask is are certain workers in a better position, owing to the centrality of where they happen to work to capitalist maintenance, to lead the way to such self-abolition.


Not all workers are revolutionary and can just as easily be reactionary or apolitical entirely.
However you are talking about subjective issues here, ie. whether workers believe in revolutionary, reactionary or apolitical ideas. I am talking about where their material conditions place them in relation to capital reproduction so...


Quite simply, viewing the working class as one undivided chunk of ideological material is fallacy.I specifically didn't mention ideological considerations because of what I mentioned above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But this self-abolition has to come about through a praxis of sorts, most likely the halting of production, what I was trying to ask is are certain workers in a better position, owing to the centrality of where they happen to work to capitalist maintenance, to lead the way to such self-abolition.

Why do you make a fetish out of the mass strike? Is it because you subscribe to syndicalist-turned-fascist Robert Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy? [Zanthorus: mentioned in Macnair vid on confessional sects (http://vimeo.com/15021585)]

[bricolage]

Why do you make a fetish out of the mass strike? Is it because you subscribe to syndicalist-turned-fascist Robert Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy? [Zanthorus: mentioned in Macnair vid on confessional sects (http://vimeo.com/15021585)]
I don't think it's a fetish, just an integral part of any revolutionary strategy, not the entire strategy just an integral part of it.
I certainly don't subscribe to something I've never heard of before.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The emphasis added is my own and what I want to talk about is that if the working class a collective group of individuals so defined by the societal position they occupy is revolutionary via its ability to halt the productive process and, as is written, the 'close the system down', is it not the case that some workers are more capable of this than others?

You obviously haven't heard of investment strikes or capital flight before. They too can halt productive processes.


This is only part of what makes the working-class revolutionary. Another key aspect, for 'centre' current of the second international at least, was the capacity of the working-class to organise itself:

And for Marx, the working-class is revolutionary because it is completely alienated from the human community. Since man has totally lost himself in the proletariat, he can only be rewon by the proletariat's self-abolition.

Socially revolutionary vs. politically revolutionary: Marx deals mainly with the former, and the capacity to organize is the basis of the latter.

[bricolage]

You obviously haven't heard of investment strikes or capital flight before. They too can halt productive processes.
Capital flight doesn't halt any productive process, I haven't heard of investment strikes no, I assume it refers to a temporary freeze in investment, like capital flight it doesn't halt production and it certainly can't 'shut the system down' in the way that a 'mass strike fetish' can.

[bricolage]

Regarding my initial point in this thread. Any comments on this?

The issue here is the location of relative potentials to change the world. Change itself, on the most basic level, is split into two parts: stopping what is going on now and creating something different. Whilst everyone in the world has a potential equal say in creating a new world, stopping the reproduction of the present social relation is in the hands of a relatively few...

There are a number of different ways of approaching this, the first would be just to look at the situation in the most capitalised sector of the world economy and identify that the number of workers who could really disrupt a highly developed national economy is relatively small and located in particular essential industries. Most of the rest of the proletariat in the developed economies would not be missed even if they went on strike for months.

If we approached the question on a global scale, we would see that there are more workers employed in vital industries (because automation tends to be at a lower level) but also that a relatively high number of ‘our’ economy’s vital industries are located in the 3rd world. Taking these two facts together would suggest that if there were to be a conscious, mass-based, proletarian revolutionary subject that it is likely to originate amongst the recently proletarianised, living in recently urbanised areas, working in labour-intensive industries (at a relative low level of automation) located in low wage economies. Basically, on the traditional model, the revolution will begin in China and/or India.

[Zanthorus]

But this self-abolition has to come about through a praxis of sorts, most likely the halting of production,

I don't think that the halting of production is the kind of action that is going to lead to communism. Have you ever heard the saying, every class struggle is a political struggle? That is to say, that they lead towards the rising class overthrowing the political regime of the ruling class and imposing it's own interest as the general interest. The seizure of power is a fantasy except on the basis of using this power to uproot the capitalist mode of production, the political rule of the producer is incompatible with his social slavery. I think this kind of apolitical syndicalism fails because generally it is the result of the spreading out of 'spontaneous' actions by workers in their immediate economic interests, it is not organised, directed, goal-oriented, it doesn't clearly understand itself. If the precondition for the introduction of the associated mode of production is 'Communist consciousness on a mass scale', then direct struggles for political power and the defence of a definite program are probably more useful than apolitical 'mass strikes'.


Socially revolutionary vs. politically revolutionary: Marx deals mainly with the former, and the capacity to organize is the basis of the latter.

All social revolutions within class society appear alongside political revolutions, since every class struggle is a political struggle. In a somewhat hazy fashion, I think the capacity to organise is connected to the re-appropriation of social powers.

[Amphictyonis]

Was the cause of prior revolutions always material? I read a thread the other day where a person was puting forth the theory that a global socialist revolution wont be successful until capitalism can no longer provide material sustenance in the west. I think the guy was focusing on the materialist conception of history.

I don't entirely agree with him but can see his point. Perhaps the revolution wont happen until western workers become very very uncomfortable? As it stands now, in America, the working class, by in large, is rather reactionary. It's a sad state of affairs.

[bricolage]

I think this kind of apolitical syndicalism fails because generally it is the result of the spreading out of 'spontaneous' actions by workers in their immediate economic interests, it is not organised, directed, goal-oriented, it doesn't clearly understand itself.In the first instance I wouldn't really call it syndicalism because I'm not really referring to unions, but this is a side point I suppose. Beyond that what these ‘spontaenous’ actions create are concrete forms of organisation and organs of power throught their generalisation and unification. So strike meetings become committees become councils etc etc. At the furthest degree these could be said to be embryonic forms of a future society, at the very least they are the ‘transitionary’ phase. I think as struggles intesify and generalise the demands raised intesify accordingly, so obviously a strike today will be about wages, or privatisation or public services but we are in a fundamentally un-revolutionary time and dealing with isolated occurences. However in a revolutionary period I believe we are dealing with a different situation and political power will emerge from the ‘economic’ struggles. However it is obvious that councils (if we take them as the example) are not enough on their own, as was realised a long time ago;


The councils resolve only a portion of the state State; they empty it of its social functions, but do not eliminate it; they empty the State apparatus of its control without destroying it. But then because one cannot destroy the State by ignoring it, because at any moment it can make its presence felt in putting into motion its mechanisms of repression and sanction, it follows that these mechanisms must be destroyed. The councils cannot accomplish this function, and because of that, the intervention of an organised force is necessary, the specific movement of the class which will carry out such a mission.

Now probably the resolution places to much emphasis on the state merely as a form of repression but the fact that an ‘organised force’, ‘the specific movement of the class’ will eradicate state power will be a secondary event still remains. The alternative is the retrenchment into partyist doctrine that does not result in the liquidation of the state but its recreation, that privleges the party as an agent of change and not the class itself, thus severing any connections that might have exited between the two and subordinating the latter to the former.

Conversely when we speak of ‘the party’ we can only speak of it as a result of struggle itself as it is this which will give birth to and see the growth of meaningful organisation. Thus ‘apolitical mass strikes’ are not an alternative to organisation but the first step towards it.

In all fairness I probably sound like I am fetishising them now and of course they are one element in a range of tactical considerations. That being said I still believe the halting of production, the shutting down of the system, the triggering of chaos is the necessary prerequisite for the emergence of communism as a concrete reality.


then direct struggles for political power and the defence of a definite program are probably more useful than apolitical 'mass strikes'.
But how do you propose to even get to the position of offering a direct struggle for political power without there first being an economic struggle in itself?

[Zanthorus]

However in a revolutionary period I believe we are dealing with a different situation and political power will emerge from the ‘economic’ struggles.

I think this is essentially what our disagreement hinges on. The problem is that political power can only be taken consciously, you cannot con the working-class into taking it through mass economic struggles. The representation of the interests of the proletariat as the general interest presupposes consciousness of it's task, which can only be the work of the party intervening in struggles to restore the historic memory and theoretical consciousness of the workers' movement back to the class after it's eradication by the counter-revolution. Mass economic struggles have occured countless times in the past, but generally they end without a substantial change in consciousness on anyone's part. The change in consciousness can only be the work of a revolutionary party engaging in tireless educational work.

If I might even 'bend the bow' a little bit and remind you of the 'profoundly true and important' words of Karl Kautsky ;)


The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done.

Of course Lenin was right to add the qualifier:


This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians,

The essential point that Kautsky was trying to make (Which, contrary to the streams of writing by hysterical council communists, had nothing to do with a party of the intelligentsia dominating the proletariat. Kautsky was, in fact, in favour of a workers-only membership policy) remains however. Socialist consciousness has never arisen out of spontaneous economic struggles.


The alternative is the retrenchment into partyist doctrine that does not result in the liquidation of the state but its recreation, that privleges the party as an agent of change and not the class itself, thus severing any connections that might have exited between the two and subordinating the latter to the former.

I think you are creating a false dichotomy here between growing political struggles out of economic struggles and 'retrechment into partyist doctrine' that privileges the revolutionary party as an agent of change. I do not privilege the party as an agent of change, I privilege the part as an educational instrument, as a better means of developing the consciousness of the class, of raising it's theoretical to the point necessary for revolution, than involvement in struggles for immediate economic interests.


Conversely when we speak of ‘the party’ we can only speak of it as a result of struggle itself as it is this which will give birth to and see the growth of meaningful organisation.

This is, of course, true. Prior to the upswing in struggle, the party cannot exist, and it can only be created by the workers. However, the development of a party presupposes consciousness, consciousness which can be developed by various pre-party forms of organisation - tendencies, currents, leagues, correspondence committees and such - which arise on the basis of an organic unity between revolutionary elements for educational work, propaganda and intervention in struggles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If I might even 'bend the bow' a little bit and remind you of the 'profoundly true and important' words of Karl Kautsky ;)

You italicized the wrong part. :p You italicized the first part, not the last part.

[GreenCommunism]

i think that teachers and artists are more usually revolutionary. and that soldiers usually have more reactionary thinking since they have to strictly follow orders and shut up.

i don't know why exactly i think teachers tend to be leftist, but the reason why artists would be in my opinion is that they often go over boundaries. perhaps the teacher have been taught that punishment for example doesn't work as much as prevention and comprehension, no idea.

[Amphictyonis]

Well, Marx thought industrial workers were more revolutionary. Look at his criticisms of anarchists. The industrial proletariat was "better organized" and regimented for, well, read Marx's own words. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

[black magick hustla]

I think this is essentially what our disagreement hinges on. The problem is that political power can only be taken consciously, you cannot con the working-class into taking it through mass economic struggles. The representation of the interests of the proletariat as the general interest presupposes consciousness of it's task, which can only be the work of the party intervening in struggles to restore the historic memory and theoretical consciousness of the workers' movement back to the class after it's eradication by the counter-revolution.

This is somewhat true but there are a few things that I want to add.

The party is not created by a handful of politicized elements, but it is a class organ and it cannot really emerge outside of revolutionary periods. What there are however, tendencies, fractions, and political organizations. Bordiga more or less understood this, of course, not to its completion because he declared a party which was not really the party, rather a political organization. What he understood, when he talked about invariance of theory, is that politicized elements cannot really do much outside revolutionary periods, and what they should do is instead theorize, keep the history of the class, and reach to new generations of militants. If it werent for this type of activity, I wouldnt know much about the history of people like me and that I am not alone.

So there is something that militant groups can do, contrary to what monsieur dupont said, albeit, it is somewhat limited.

[bricolage]

these are some interesting points, I will have to have a think about this.

[bricolage]

Well, Marx thought industrial workers were more revolutionary. Look at his criticisms of anarchists. The industrial proletariat was "better organized" and regimented for, well, read Marx's own words. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm
Which text here are you referring to?

[Zanthorus]

Bordiga more or less understood this, of course, not to its completion because he declared a party which was not really the party, rather a political organization.

As a side note, it was not Bordiga who declared the PCInt/ICP a 'party', it was certain elements of the Italian left who thought that the post-War period in Italy would see an upsurge in working-class militancy similar to what happened after the first world war. Bordiga was only dragged back into the 'party' in the late 40's.

[9]

Well, Marx thought industrial workers were more revolutionary. Look at his criticisms of anarchists. The industrial proletariat was "better organized" and regimented for, well, read Marx's own words. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Which text here are you referring to?

I'm curious as well. I did a search of the Marx archive on MIA using "better organized", "regimented for", and "industrial proletariat" - and several different variations of these - and it didn't return anything along the lines that you suggest. So I'd be interested to see the actual quote.

Which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with the idea; on the contrary, I think it's largely true. But I'm interested whether Marx actually said it.

[Amphictyonis]

I'm curious as well. I did a search of the Marx archive on MIA using "better organized", "regimented for", and "industrial proletariat" - and several different variations of these - and it didn't return anything along the lines that you suggest. So I'd be interested to see the actual quote.

Which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with the idea; on the contrary, I think it's largely true. But I'm interested whether Marx actually said it.
It was in one of his many letters. I read it years ago and don't recall who he was writing- the discussion was surrounding organizing workers, Bakunin thought the state only need be abolished then capital would follow (anarchism). Marx, on the other hand, thought workers must be organized under a central body and anarchists, being mostly artisans at the time, didn't fit into the mould of organizable dare I say controllable workers. You've heard all of the angry posturing over the years between Marxists and Anarchists surrounding Marx's opinion that anarchists were members of the petite bourgeoisie. It was one of the many criticisms Marx threw at Bakunin in their feud. I can't remember which letter, perhaps when I have some time I'll go here (below) and dig it up for you.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/anarchism.htm

In any event, I don't think modern anarchists are members of the petite bourgeoisie but it carried more weight in Marx's time. I think his main point on the matter was three fold -the petite bourgeoisie wouldn't be suited for industry, couldn't be organized as easy if at all and would have social standing to loose in a (Marxist) revolution against capital.

These days, especially in the west, there would be no way Marx could give anarchists the label of petite bourgeoisie.

PS. Sorry I can't remember the exact source for everything I've read over the years :)

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I'm curious as well. I did a search of the Marx archive on MIA using "better organized", "regimented for", and "industrial proletariat" - and several different variations of these - and it didn't return anything along the lines that you suggest. So I'd be interested to see the actual quote.

Which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with the idea; on the contrary, I think it's largely true. But I'm interested whether Marx actually said it.
Well, industrial workers (I'm talking manufacturing type employment) are more advanced because they generally work in a large work environment in close contact with other workers, and are mostly removed from middle-management. Also, unlike in a service job, factory workers are generally more class conscious because it's easy for anyone to see that they are producing things which are worth way more than they are getting paid.

[9]

It was in one of his many letters. I read it years ago and don't recall who he was writing- the discussion was surrounding organizing workers, Bakunin thought the state only need be abolished then capital would follow (anarchism). Marx, on the other hand, thought workers must be organized under a central body and anarchists, being mostly artisans at the time, didn't fit into the mould of organizable dare I say controllable workers. You've heard all of the angry posturing over the years between Marxists and Anarchists surrounding Marx's opinion that anarchists were members of the petite bourgeoisie.

To be honest, I'm slightly more confused now :P

I'm aware that anarchism has its origins in the petty bourgeoisie and I'm aware that, obviously, the working class - not the petty bourgeoisie - is the revolutionary class. But originally, I got the impression that you were saying Marx's argument was not about workers versus petty bourgeois, but rather, that industrial workers are more revolutionary than service workers. And while I'm not disputing whether the idea is true, as I think in general it is, I was curious whether Marx actually said it. It's also possible that I misunderstood your initial post.


Well, industrial workers (I'm talking manufacturing type employment) are more advanced because

I wasn't debating the point; I was asking to see where Marx made this argument.

[bricolage]

Yeah I thought the same thing too (industrial vs service workers). In fact there was a very interesting post on this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1865499&postcount=41) that got me thinking about this in the first place.

[Amphictyonis]

To be honest, I'm slightly more confused now :P

I'm aware that anarchism has its origins in the petty bourgeoisie and I'm aware that, obviously, the working class - not the petty bourgeoisie - is the revolutionary class. But originally, I got the impression that you were saying Marx's argument was not about workers versus petty bourgeois, but rather, that industrial workers are more revolutionary than service workers. And while I'm not disputing whether the idea is true, as I think in general it is, I was curious whether Marx actually said it. It's also possible that I misunderstood your initial post.



I wasn't debating the point; I was asking to see where Marx made this argument.

Yes, Marx thought industrial workers had more potential to overthrow capitalism because of the more centralized nature of their work places (easier to organize). Sorry I don't have references, I've read so much over the years it would be impossible for me to site verse and page. Maybe another poster can help me out? :) Also, sorry it took so long to get back to this post. The peasants couldn't be considered 'revolutionary' per say by Marx (unless capitalist nations went socialist) and anarchists were too spread out and hard to organize (in his time). Industrial workers, in Marx's time, held the power to halt the economy- most anarchists in his time weren't industrial workers. Anarchists , in Marx's time weer more so independent artisans and such. Bookbinders, cart makers, shoe repairman etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mr Proudhon is, from top to toe, a philosopher, an economist of the petty bourgeoisie.


Proudhon had a natural inclination for dialectics. But as he never grasped really scientific dialectics he never got further than sophistry. This is in fact connected with his petty-bourgeois point of view.

Most of the "petty bourgeois" accusations were directed at Proudhon. The constant labelling of anarchism as an entire tendency as "petty bourgeois" really kicked into gear with later Marxists (Lenin etc.)

Albert Meltzer talked about this issue at one point:


As we have said, Marxists accuse the Anarchists of being petty bourgeois. Using the term in its modern sense, it makes Marx look ridiculous. Marx was distinguishing between the bourgeois (with full rights of citizens as employers and merchants) and the minor citizens -- i.e. self-employed workers). When Marx referred to the Anarchists being 'petty bourgeois' who when they were forced by monopoly capitalism and the breakdown of a peasant-type society into industry, and being therefore 'frustrated' and turning to violence, because they did not accept the discipline taken for granted by the industrial proletariat, he was expressing something that was happening, especially after the breaking up of the independent Communes of Paris and Barcelona, and the breakdown of the capitalist economy, in his day. But, with the change of meaning, to think of today's Anarchists as frustrated bowler-hatted bank managers turning to violence because they have been forced into industry is straining one's sense of the ridiculous.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually, it seems that I misread what was being discussed (which wasn't about Karl Marx's thoughts in regard to anarchism being petty-bourgeois or whatever). My bad.

[Tim Finnegan]

Still an interesting post, though! :thumbup1:

[The Grey Blur]

isn't the ability and output of the workers in an essential industry - energy to take your example - predicated on the provision of a wider network of social infrastructure (provision of food, administration, healthcare, general infrastructure, transport etc)? (and thus in effect on a wider network of proletarian labour).

as far as i understand it a worker is not solely defined by the extraction of immediate surplus value from his labour, but that all workers under capitalism are participants in these efforts even if indirectly ie provision of healthcare etc

...i guess what i'm trying to say is that focussing on a single layer of labour (as infeasible as that would be in praxis, anyway) is missing the forest for the trees.

[The Grey Blur]

no comments?

essentially certain sectors of the proletariat may perform economically more crucial tasks than others, but without a wider struggle of the class any strike or insurrectionary efforts by this group could be shut down, their jobs taken over by the army, etc...

man i hate when i kill a topic.

edit: while i'm killing it i might as well say that 'nihilist communism' is lame as hell, especially if this is the extent of its insights.